AC/DC and sub-genres issues (alt. metal+hard rock)
Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Suggest new bands/artists to MMA
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Metal Music Archives
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=93
Printed Date: 29 Apr 2024 at 7:38am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: AC/DC and sub-genres issues (alt. metal+hard rock)
Posted By: Logan
Subject: AC/DC and sub-genres issues (alt. metal+hard rock)
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 10:42am
|
Should AC/DC be included? I say yes, at least eventually. I see AC/DC as a hard, blues, pub rock and metal band. |
Replies:
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 10:50am
|
I've always felt that they were a metal band. In many ways they are the poster boys of metal But with metal getting heavier and more extreme history may have rewritten them as just a hard rock band. They certainly have the songs about Hell and the album covers with devil references to fit into the metal category. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 11:05am
|
^ Agreed. I used to listen to AC/DC a lot in the '80s and considered them metal back then. It was also a very influential band on many metal acts.
-------------  - -brutalogan
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 12:14pm
Hell yeah ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: NJCat_11
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 12:17pm
Some of the best Traditional Heavy Metal there is!  ------------- http://www.chess.com/members/view/NJCat?ref_id=1432587 - Come and play me at Chess.com http://www.youtube.com/user/NJCat?feature=mhw4 - Homepage |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 4:39pm
|
I can't call myself much of a fan, but they should be in traditional heavy metal.
------------- Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 4:44pm
|
------------- - -brutalogan
|
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 7:33pm
|
Yes for Tradition Heavy Metal. But I heard somewhere they dislike being called a Metal band. |
Posted By: NJCat_11
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 7:38pm
Every band claims they don't like being assigned a genre (or sub-genre), but they all get sorted out somehow. I don't think it would hurt to include them here. ------------- http://www.chess.com/members/view/NJCat?ref_id=1432587 - Come and play me at Chess.com http://www.youtube.com/user/NJCat?feature=mhw4 - Homepage |
PROGMAN wrote:Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 10:04pm
|
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/acdc.aspx - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/acdc.aspx
Added, thanks for the suggestion.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2010 at 7:01am
|
funny... sort of torn on this one. personally... I don't think they are metal. however I long thought one of the weaknesses of the other site was where a few people like me who didn't think a band belonged would put the kabosh on it... but what of the people that did think the band should be added. Again M@X.. not sure if intentional... but a wise move. I long thought the 'elitism' of PA's ended up driving more people away than any of us would care to admit. Nice to see something borderline (and AC/DC is ..and that is being kind haha) added. It is an archive of metal... not the bible which strict guidelines on what is.. and is not. An elite group of artists. sh*t.. it's too early for reading too much into these additions hahha. Need that 2nd cup of coffee. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:17am
|
Once described famously (to me!) by Smash Hits as Heavy Metal headbanging horrors (oooh - get the alliteration!), AC/DC helped me get into heavy metal.
It doesn't rock much harder than Back in Black - and For Those About to Rock is more of the same, but with huge guns...
|
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:22pm
|
They are not metal. They are related. Maybe if there was a genre in-between it would fit perfectly. They aree certainly not traditional heavy metal |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:24pm
| AC/DC are NOT metal. They are straightforward hard rock, and damn good at it too. I think maybe their song The Razor's Edge and maybe Thunderstruck are metal songs, but the rest of their catalogue has extremely little to no metal to it. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:30pm
|
for what is worth.. I agree.. but at the same time. While I don't agree with AC/DC being here.. because I don't think they are metal. Let's not make the same mistakes I think PA's has made... the site should reflect the views of not a few... but a more 'archival' view. That means accepting some groups that we, personally, feel are not metal. |
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:38pm
|
The website needs an extra genre for artists like this. Hard Rock-metal is as good an idea as any ------------- 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:39pm
|
Please have a look at the Hard Rock section on BNR: http://www.bnrmetal.com/v2/genre.php?ID=H - http://www.bnrmetal.com/v2/genre.php?ID=H I believe their genre system, though not perfect by any means, is much better than the one they have at Encyclopaedia Metallum. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:40pm
yep... |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:42pm
Dangerous Toys!!!! god I LOVE that group... that singer kicks ass... |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:46pm
| If you look at their 70's metal section, there are quite a few bands that on PA are included in Heavy Prog - Captain Beyond, Atomic Rooster, Armageddon, to name but a few. |
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:48pm
Why is my signature so big?? I've reduced the size almost to zero in photobucket and it's still gigantic... -------------
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:52pm
Because you want to show to us all how handsome you are in comparison with DT ?
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:53pm
AC/DC is widely recognised to have made not only songs but albums of the heavy metal variety. Of course AC/DC is not heavy metal per se, but they did make plenty of head-banging music (and music to bang to, kinda like Isaac Hayes only harder, but not as hard as Chef), and surely we don't want to limit this site to acts whose music can only be described as metal, or worse, limit it to bands that can only be considered metal (bands of robots perhaps that are made of metal and maybe never even play a note of music. Is that what you want? Let's forget about whether the music can be described as heavy metal and worry more about if the things themselves are made of a heavy metal such as lead -- a Lead Zeppelin would be very heavy indeed) I wonder about even calling bands Metal, or Prog ,-- part of the movement, or making music of that ilk. but calling the band itself Metal... I wear leather and studs, have big hair, an Adamantine skeleton, and wear eye-shadow so I must be metal. Aluminium bands are okay, I guess? Anyway, I know that I considered the album Back in Black to be heavy metal when it came out, but maybe you didn't. Maybe we do need a state-of-the-art metal detector here that will only let those things themselves that are clearly metal through-and-through through. No alloys allowed either, just pure heavy metal... dense and toxic. ------------- - -brutalogan
|
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 7:58pm
Well I don't know about that... Actually I was trying to pass as the new DT member nobody knew about...  -------------
|
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 8:03pm
|
... I personnaly would prefer deleting AC/DC than creating a sub-genre for them.
We need to set the pace in the coming days for the future. We have some "borderline" subgenre that we need to decide and go one with our decision
As a Metal Music Archive dedicated website and community. We need to set things straight here so we can take steps up , not stay on the same floor .
Let's discuss.... |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 8:05pm
This is the point I was trying to make earlier with Micky. Many people perceive stuff like Back in Black as heavy metal, even if we (the experts) think it's not. The dividing line between hard rock and classic heavy metal is VERY thin, unlike the one between 'traditional' prog and the newer subgenres, or 'real' prog and prog-related. |
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 8:36pm
|
I'll comment quoting M@x's words:
Let's remember we will want to attract metal fans here. Let's welcome then waving the flag of metal. For hard rock and prog we have other sites (oh yes we do )-------------
|
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 8:52pm
| FYI, this topic was moved from Suggest New Bands to SPECIAL COLLABORTORS ZONE |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 9:03pm
|
OK -- If we are to rename Nu Metal to Alternative Metal, is it possible to be sure that only the most metal ones are added, no alt-rock stuff? Or it's better to avoid it at all ? In any case, we need a strong collab.  to handle this, and some backup from all.About Hard-Rock & Proto-metal , we should write a good metal history article in our metal music guides section and in the Trad. heavy metal definition, as Certif1ed did here ( http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-metal/44034-history-heavy-metal-thread.html - ) withtout having to list all the artists in the proto-metal movement ? And only keep in Trad. heavy metal the real ones. Again, should this hit our credibility ? |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 9:12pm
Bed time, see ya tomorrow 
|
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 11:14pm
|
Here's the controversial take on hard rock (unsurprisingly) from me: "Hard rock and heavy metal are two variations on one form of music that were closely related throughout the first few decades of the development of both genres. The phrase heavy metal itself was first used to describe bands that by most contemporaries and most certainly in retrospect are regarded as hard rock: One of the first documented uses of the expression to describe music was used by Mike Saunders of Creem Magazine to describe the 1971 album by Sir Lord Baltimore. The phrase itself was popularized by US act Steppenwolf in their immortal anthem Born to Be Wild, while Iron Butterfly's song "In a Gadda da Vida" from 1968 for many years was described as the first heavy metal song. When heavy metal settled and started developing as a genre, the two major players early on were Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. While the deep, dark and twisted sounds of the latter never ventured into other musical realms, Led Zeppelin was a band that moved back and forth between hard rock and metal through their career. More often than not exploring the fields of the former rather than the latter. Later on bands like Blue Oyster Cult was described as "the thinking man's heavy metal", with a distinctly dark sound on many of their albums that had strong metal references yet was performed in a manner much more similar to what was then and now described as hard rock. While the two genres slowly drifted apart throughput the 70's, the 1980's brought them together again full force with the sudden rise in popularity of the so-called hair metal bands. An old and experienced hard rock artist like Alice Copper started exploring this genre, even acts like Kiss and Aerosmith was seen as belonging to that movement in one form or another. And the musical expression of the movement itself blurred the lines between hard rock and metal with it's subdued guitar expressions, preference for strong melodies and catchy chorus lines. Indeed, many bands sorted under the hair metal and glam metal umbrella would have been dubbed AOR in previous years. At the same time as this highly commercial part of metal was on the rise, other movements stared evolving that would take metal in completely different directions as well. Metallica and Anthrax in the US, Venom in England, Hellhammer in Switzerland and a steadily rising number of bands started to develop what many fans of metal music refers to as metal today, with thrash metal, black metal and death metal as the founding genres of a new subset of metal music. Of the most interesting aspects to note in this development was how they drew in two other types of harder edged music that had been regarded as separate entities, namely hardcore and punk. Thrash bands like Anthrax included many aspects of punk in their music, while bands like Circle Jerks to some extent and Nuclear Assault to a much larger extent included the US-based hardcore sound into their stylistic expressions. And while punk and hardcore inspired the evolvement of indie rock and alternative rock in the mainstream music scene, the more dramatic parts parts of those musical expressions were also put to good use amongst metal bands. In later years, genres like metalcore showcase just how much of an impact this would bring to the metal community. Separating hard rock and heavy metal is a difficult exercise. While most people born after 1980 might not see the problem, those who have lived long enough to witness the rise and development of both genres in the 1970's will indeed have major problems in drawing a line between one and the other. And as the use of distorted electric guitars is such a central element in both genres, in many cases the difference between one and the other will merely be a subtle nuance, and in many cases we will find hard rock bands with a much more metal based sound than many acts sporting a pure metal pedigree as well. Cue the aforementioned hair metal movement of the 1980's." With this large bucket of ice water dropped into the discussion, I guess some debate will follow ;-) |
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2010 at 11:49pm
I support the change to Alternative Metal, there have been a couple of good discussions about it already, here's one of them: http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=69&PN=1 - http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=69&PN=1 ------------- http://iamthreepeople.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow">  <- Click on this!
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 1:58am
Hey - I'm an expert, and I say BiB is a metal album.
You wanna disagree for 27 pages until you cave in?
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 2:07am
^ . I�d say AC/DC took their bluesy hard rock enough into metal territory to be an important part of MMA. I know I would expect to find them here if I came to MMA hungry for metal . As I understand AC/DC were generally considered to be a heavy metal act in the eighties, but as metal has moved more into the mainstream in the nineties their music are often refered to as hard rock today. I�d go for an inclusive attitude, but that probably doesn�t surprise anyone. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 2:21am
Sorry, WH - this is very uncontroversial and toes the line that I've read on so many sites - and is by and large heresay (that is, mainly wrong).
I think you'll find my version is quite controversial - but it's based on the facts, not the legends, so it would be...
Was it?
Where is this documented?
There is certainly a lot of crossover between heavy metal and hard rock, particularly in the early days - but there is also a world of difference between Free style hard rock and UFO style metal.
Many bands played both, of course, just to add to the confusion.
THE first is on the cover of the album "Hapshash and the Coloured Coat, featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids", which was released in 1967.
SLB are not Heavy Metal, BTW, any more than Arthur Brown's Kingdom Come or Cream are.
Was it really - or has it come to be that way in retrospect?
Was this before or after Slayer covered it? It's not actually more metal than, say, The Doors from 1965.
Hang on - Sabbath's style didn't really catch on with anyone except Priest (and maybe a few relative unknowns, like May Blitz and Australian band Buffalo) until the 1980s - they were hardly major players in Heavy Metal, even though they were major players.
Led Zeppelin only have the "metal" connection because of the mis-spelled "Led" - they were a hard / bvlues / folk rock act that emerged from the Yardbirds.
Indeed...
- and, of course, releasing a song called Heavy Metal right in the middle of the "NWoBHM" years.
Amazingly, BOC, Sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Judas Priest were all heavily influenced by the band who called themselves The Heavy Metal Kids (see above).
It's interesting to note that The Heavy Metal Kids were the first act that Hendrix played with when he came to England. In fact, Hendrix's debut was to jam onstage with the HMKs (at the time, somewhat ironically called the VIPs) at a pretty big gig.
This is a romanticised view - the "two genres" didn't drift apart or collide - metal as a genre has always been hugely varied in its quest to keep up with its big brother, Prog Rock.
"Hair-Metal" was a simple extension of Glam Rock, which in turn was just another fad in Pop music.
Metal can be as united or as fractured as you care to make it.
The "lines" were blurred from the beginning
There is no real difference between "Thrash" and "Black" or "Death" metal - these all sprang from the same source. Any differences are cultural and superficial rather than musically inherent.
As time passed, the differences became greater in many aspects of metal - as they have done since the genre's inception.
Metal is interesting genre in that it's not a passing fad, it's an ever-growing and evolving true genre - and this is largely due to the aspect I like least about it - this tendency to want to splinter off and create microcosms with unintelligble names to describe what are perceived as new styles.
Metal has always drawn in other types of music - and it's only natural that it should be attracted to anything that sounds aggressive - this development is entirely an obvious one.
Punk itself begat hardcore - there's no need to split the two.
UK bands The Damned and the UK Subs essentially planted the "hardcore" style as far as I can see.
Cue the "What is Metal" thread...
|
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 3:07am
|
I looked up a few sources here. One of the most interesting is from a guy with linguistics as a speciality, with a hobby to track down the origins of words and phrases. Not a fan at all, but purely concerned with the linguistic aspect of the heavy metal expression. --------------------------------------------------- Meaning Hard rock music, usually electric guitar-based and always loud. Origin Heavy metal seems at first a strange label to apply to a form of music. A little investigation into the symbolism behind makes it seem a rather obvious choice though. 'Heavy' was coined in the beatnik area of the 1950s to mean serious or profound. The term 'heavy music' was then and later applied to music that was in that vein. Of course it's clear to see that meaning of heavy is derived from the usual meaning, i.e. weighty or massive.
So, heavy and metal are ideal candidate words for this genre. Add that to the fact that heavy metal had already been widely used as a military term for heavily fortified tanks/guns etc. and it starts to look like an ideal choice as a label. The expression first appears in print in William Burroughs' 1962 novel The Soft Machine. His character Uranian Willy is described as "the Heavy Metal Kid". Burroughs later re-used the term in his 1964 novel Nova Express:
It isn't clear who first appropriated the term to refer to loud rock music, although several lay claim to it. The widely quoted description of Jimi Hendrix's music as 'like listening to heavy metal falling from the sky', while being a fairly accurate assessment, isn't the earliest. Some claim that the US rock music critic Lester Bangs, while working for Creem magazine, used the expression in 1968 to describe a performance of the band MC5 (Motor City Five) from Detroit. Creem magazine themselves attribute the term to Mike Saunders, in an article about the 'Kingdom Come' album, by Sir Lord Baltimore, in the May 1971 edition of the magazine:
This has the benefit of being a traceable citation, as copies of the edition are still extant. So, until other hard evidence is found, that has to be the current strongest claim. It would be surprising if the term had never been used in the musical context before 1971 though - after all Steppenwolf used it in the lyric of their 1968 song Born to be Wild:
The musical style remains popular, although less so than in its heyday - the 1980s, and has spawned sub-genres. These include 'death metal', 'thrash metal', 'grindcore' and even 'folk metal' (aka 'heavy wood'). |
Okay,
that's heavy but why should a form of music be called metal? Well,
metal is heavy, especially the metals favoured by the bands who played
that genre, e.g. Led Zeppelin, Iron Butterfly and Quicksilver Messenger
Service (quicksilver is mercury). Also, the term 'heavy metals' in the
chemical sense include mercury, lead and cadmium, which have just the
right image of toxicity to suit the musical style. It's interesting,
although probably just co-incidence, that many of the British heavy
metal bands came from the two principal centres of metal manufacturing
in the UK, namely Birmingham (e.g. Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath/Ozzy
Osbourne) and Sheffield (Def Leppard). With the decline of that
manufacturing tradition, most of the 'metal bashing', as it was known,
is now done by these bands rather than by men with big hammers. 
"This album is a far cry from the
currently prevalent Grand Funk sludge, because Sir Lord Baltimore seems
to have down pat most all the best heavy metal tricks in the book.
Precisely, they sound like a mix between the uptempo noiseblasts of Led
Zeppelin (instrumentally) and singing that�s like an unending Johnny
Winter shriek: they have it all down cold, including medium or uptempo
blasts a la LZ, a perfect carbon of early cataclysmic MC5."Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 3:16am
|
Cue the Steppenwolf citation, it seems that it was coined frequently by one particular music reviewer way back when, and that it caught on since: "This is an FYI based on a handful of queries that have come my way in the course of, but unrelated to, my career as a writer of mystery and suspense novels. In the dim, dark recesses of history and my resume, and using the byline Mike Jahn, I was the first rock critic for the daily New York Times. In that regard I appear to have coined the phrase "heavy metal." At least I have repeatedly been told that I did. Here is the genesis: there were, in the laste 60s and early 70s, several bands that used metallic/heavy equipment imagery in their names: Led Zeppelin, Iron Butterfly, Grand Funk Railroad, and MC5 (Motor City Five). I described them citing the phrase "heavy metal thunder" from the Steppenwolf song "Born to Be Wild." Apparently the category name of "heavy metal" music devolved from that. If I'm wrong, will someone please correct me? I'm not terribly proprietary about the matter, didn't patent it or anything, though I did rather expect that the achievement would earn me a lifetime supply of hair spray and leather pants. Michael Jahn" |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 3:49am
| I can't track back the source of the BOC description as thinking man's heavy metal. They were described that way in the early 80's, when I started listening to them, and may date back to sometime in the 70's. It's quoted so many times in reference to that band online that tracking the origin of that one is next to impossible. It's been around for longer than the Heavy Metal movie they contributed songs too though, but how much longer is hard to tell without doing rather extensive research I think. Raff might have some pointers there - as I'm only 38 she has been around a few more years than me. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 4:12am
|
Cue Sabbath: They didn't influence too many of their contemporaries active in the music scene alongside themselves, but their fans did start making their own bands towards the end of the decade. Some bands that did start out before the 80's were Pentagram, Witchfinder General, Witchfynde. Budgie might be reckoned in there as well. But the main impact of Sabbath started to be felt first in the early 80s, with bands like Trouble spearheading what would eventually develop from downer metal to doom metal. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 4:15am
|
"THE first is on the cover of the album "Hapshash and the Coloured Coat,
featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids", which was released
in 1967." I'd like to see a source that cites that this was meant as a descriptive feature for the music rather than a cool tag for an album. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 4:21am
| ...I'll let the finer points be. But it should be pretty obvious that separating hard rock from heavy metal is a pretty difficult task at this point I'd think ;-) |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 4:25am
You probably won't, because the music isn't even vaguely metal - although on the right medication, it's certainly heavy - and I would guess that there is a connection to Burroughs here. This is probably the only connection. I've read that article before that you cite, and while it's interesting, it makes all kinds of generalisms without tying them in particularly well.
It's the first usage I know of in relation to music, although it may not predate the Hendrix citation, of which I've heard, but never seen documented evidence, and it ties in with Spooky Tooth's story nicely, as they are certainly one of the seminal bands on the heavy metal genre - and, as noted, played with Hendrix before he recorded anything with his own band.
The fact that they used the label first, and produced such heavy music, while influencing such important acts should not go unnoted, IMO - and it's almost NEVER mentioned in metal histories, indeed, ST tend to get overlooked - which is surely tantmount to a crime given their impact?
|
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 4:39am
|
I support an inclusive policy.
Both the Metal Archives and BNR (to name just 2) have similar policies. This has already been pointed out in this thread.
For example: AC/DC were Metal, we wouldn't, however, classify them as that now, that's all.
God damn, their concerts were filled to the rafters by metalheads...I know I was one of them!
This applies to many other crossover Heavy Metal/Hard Rock bands and in my opinion we should have a category that reflects this.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112 
|
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 5:09am
Why not just a Crossover-Rock Genre? You can dump all those bands in there. -------------   |
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 5:21am
"Dump" might not be the most suitable word to use  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 6:22am
Not on your life - I'll defer to your superior expertise , especially when, to all intents and purposes, we agree with each other! |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 6:38am
I believe that in my BOC bio that particular phrase was mentioned, though I'll have to check. Anyway, this is something I've seen applied to at least another very famous band - Rush - and definitely on account of the lyrical aspect. Remember that BOC, in the early years of their career, had connections with the New York underground scene via Patti Smith (who was Allen Lanier's partner for a number of times) and her guitarist Lenny Kaye, later to become an influential rock writer. Unlike Black Sabbath or Judas Priest, who both came from a heavily industrialized area like Birmingham, and a working-class background, BOC had an intellectual aura about them, supported by their esoteric, often impenetrable lyrics that went way beyond the clich�s of the genre (especially as it developed in the early Eighties). As regards the song "Heavy Metal: The Black and the Silver", it takes its title from the movie, since most of the songs on Fire of Unknown Origin were originally meant to be part of the soundtrack - though eventually only "Veteran of the Psychic Wars" made it on the soundtrack's final version. |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 6:55am
|
Thanks for all sharing thoughts and references.
Now, may I suggest something like Crossover-Rock, but I would prefer (for now) something that is also related to the timeline of the progression of the genre as a whole . So, I ask you , Metalheads MMA collabs, should this sub-genres organization work ?
We need to take decisions now |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 7:00am
| M@x, speaking personally, I disagree with some of the terminology. Proto-Metal might do, but I would definitely oppose Crossover-Rock (which, in my opinion, means something quite different). Traditional HM is also a tad too vague for my tastes, but I've seen it used on other sites, so I suppose there's nothing too wrong with it. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 7:09am
|
Proto metal won't suit the later bands exploring the classic hard rock sound (if such a thing exists), and crossover...well...you see how many different notions that one has at PA... Proto metal is a nice description if we want to add in bands exclusive of hard rock traits prior to the early 80's only. I'd go for traditional hard rock, and outlining the very close kinship it has with traditional heavy metal - in particular with regards to the development of the metal genre. |
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 7:09am
I like the idea 
------------- |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 7:36am
|
I think that "Traditional Metal" should be separated from NWoBHM, if only because of the huge proliferation of very different sounding bands that arose during the "New Wave" - which also were not all British!
"Proto Metal" is a great way to catch early acts that are clearly more hard rock than metal, but nonetheless influential on the development of metal - a lot of the NWoBHM could be considered "Hard Rock" by today's standards, but at the time, according to Kerrang! magazine (and what better authority could you have, since it was, to the best of my knowledge, the first purely Heavy Metal magazine) there were many, many acts that were considered heavy metal back then who would be sneered at now.
Thin Lizzy, for example, have only rare moments of "true" metal - but how could they possibly be excluded?
Saxon played a kind of heavy rock and roll - but with songs like "Heavy Metal Thunder" and "Denim and Leather", and their "metal" Sheffield Steel background, leaving them out would be unthinkable... to me, at least!
Between 1971 and 1979 there are a lot of acts which were to have a huge influence on metal - and many played a few songs which had that distinct metal sound - UFO and The Scorpions are first to spring to mind.
Other German acts like Eloy and Jeronimo played stuff which definitely had that metal edge - I hear a lot of Jeronimo in Priest's debut album, for instance. Even as far afield as Australia, bands like Buffalo produced music which is a bit more than simply Proto metal - and not really what you might call "traditional".
In the hard rock camp, it's impossible to escape the influences of bands like The Pink Fairies and The Groundhogs - listen to "Kings of Oblivion" by the former ("City Kids" ended up on Motorhead's debut pretty much unchanged) and "Split" by the latter ("Cherry Red" is kinda grinding and metallic - and the hogs were one of Motorhead's main influences, according to a radio interview I once heard between Tommy Vance and Lemmy).
In these latter cases, the differences between, say "Phenomenon" by UFO and "Split" are fairly clear - there is quite a sharp divide between Schenker's clear-cut diatonic chord progressions and diatonic-edged soloing and McPhee's strong blues base, giving some fairly strong guidelines for "Traditional Metal" (UFO) and "Proto Metal" (Groundhogs).
I think that using particular bands as yardsticks will help tremendously - there may be better examples... but I think that NWoBHM is an interest area that people will want to explore in depth, so should be separate.
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 7:38am
This is exactly what I had in mind, and I'll very gladly lend a hand in dealing with the subgenre if it gets implemented. I got into metal by way of classic hard rock (as many of my generation did), and it still counts as one of my favourite musical genres. Edit: I fully second Cert's above post. The NWoBHM should definitely be a separate genre, as it is on other websites. We should beware of putting too many bands in a 'traditional HM' sections, which would very soon cease to be any kind of accurate description, and turn into a glorified 'dumping ground'. |
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 7:55am
|
^ ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112
|
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:18am
 MMA Metal Subgenres sub-genres reorganization and guidelines for adding albums/artists.
Now let's plan the reorg and the re-writing/edit of the the sub-genres definitions too. |
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:26am
Cool, even more work!
------------- |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:29am
| Other question, should we order the sub-genres list on the left bar "chronologically" or in a particular order ? |
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:36am
|
Alphabetical order is the best option I think, it looks great now. ------------- http://iamthreepeople.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow"> <- Click on this!
|
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:37am
agreed. ------------- |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:39am
|
IMPORTANT Artists can added even if not all their discography fits in the site. Only the albums of a specific bands can be labeled as an MMA sub-genres, the rest can be labeled as Other and it won't be listed anywhere on the site, exept in the artist disco (we even can't allow review from theses if it's what we want)
|
Posted By: Metalbaswee
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:40am
Thats a great feature!  ------------- |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 8:44am
| I fully agree with all of the above, and think that, at least for the time being, we should put on hold any reviews of albums that are not metal-related. We have already seen how divisive the issue has been on PA, and I think it is always good to learn from previous mistakes. |
Posted By: Sleepwalker
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 9:43am
| This thread has been moved back to the suggest new bands and artists subforum by the admin team. |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 3:53pm
|
About the NWoBHM inclusion or not in Traditional Metal...
I want to take position here and consider the following facts:
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2010 at 4:24pm
|
I would invite folks not necessarily on the alt.metal team to chime in their opinions on where we should be drawing the line. Collabs can use the official thread and I'll check this one as well.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 2:22am
|
I think that one of the ways to begin distinguishing between hard rock and heavy metal is that heavy metal represents a breaking away from the blues and R&B which underpins hard rock - hence "Traditional" metal bands cannot help but be blues-influenced in some way. It's the way they escape the shackles of Blues Rock which is particularly interesting.
This is a "boundary" I'm examining with great interest (and enjoying loads of great music while I'm doing it - well, someone has to!).
The NWoBHM didn't represent a departure from Blues Rock - indeed, plenty of NWoBHM bands played it. Spider are probably the worst offenders, with Dumpy's Rusty Nuts, Larry Miller and Predatur not far behind.
NWoBHM was a well-defined period - a "movement" if you like, and it's important to note that it was not a style or genre. It hardly seems possible to lump Spider in with Praying Mantis, Iron Maiden and Venom. Not to mention Bad News and Spinal Tap, who emerged during the movement's heyday. Drat, I mentioned them...
Kerrang! magazine even lumped Marillion into the Metal bucket. I think Fish's face appeared on the cover of issue #2, promoting a somewhat lengthy interview.
|
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 6:26am
Yeah, right ! FISH -- as in, you've been "April Fooled" by Cert. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 6:30am
| No, M@x, he's serious.... I used to buy Kerrang! every month (or every two weeks) in the Eighties, and they were among the first to feature (and promote) Neo-Prog bands. I remember very well when they had Fish on their cover - though it was much later than # 2. |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 6:44am
Doh !  |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 11:08am
what's the difference between hard-rock and heavy metal, Monsieur ?
|
Posted By: The T 666
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:04pm
In a way, it's just a matter of degree. But it's clear to anyone who listens that the riff that informs all metal is less pre-eminent in hard rock that still has a lot of blues into it. Distortion, techniques in playing the guitars (the main instrument in both), rhythm are essential differences. For example, Guns n' Roses, Aerosmith = Hard Rock. None would ever qualify them as metal. -------------
|
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:22pm
|
^Basically this. Rock riffs are generally more blues based and I'd say more pop oriented (generally more repetitive and catchy). Whereas with Metal riffs you have more chugs, gallops, drones, alt picking and sweeps, etc. and they're more agressive rather than fun or catchy. AC/DC dishes out fun and catchy riffs in spades, with blues influence splattered all over the place.
Unfortunately, Guns n' Roses are often categorized as metal as well. ------------- Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 12:53pm
Sadly it's not as simple as that - I really don't care for a "What is Metal" thread, but Metal can be blues, and Hard Rock can be aggressive.
Even Metal can be a bit poppy and catchy - "Run To The Hills" anyone? "Ace of Spades"? How about "United" by Judas Priest - there isn't even any "Gallop" in that one. The Scorpions are notorious for their ballads, and Van Halen covered Soul and Trad Jazz numbers. Metal is a hugely versatile genre, and knows no boundaries when it comes to assimilation. I wouldn't argue the toss over bands like Jane's Addiction or the Red Hot Chili Peppers, for instance.
I remember when "Appetite For Destruction" came out and there weren't many who would not have described it as Heavy Metal. GnR sank quickly into a mire of blues after that one, though.
The distinction is far from clear, and even Status Quo have been described as Metal (they headlined Donington in 1982 - I was there!). Marillion I totally draw the line at though - wish I had thought of it as an April fool!
I believe there was a compilation called "Soft Metal" which featured Kayleigh... |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 4:18pm
|
Well, I know of at least one Prog compilation featuring "Don't Fear the Reaper" .... Anyway, I agree with Mark's post 100%, especially as regards the versatility of metal - something not immediately evident to its detractors. |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2010 at 5:59pm
I'm not disagreeing with you, though I'd like to point out that I meant generally. I just think that when people hear any mix of distorted guitars, minor keys, or agressive vocals people assume it's metal. When you say it's not as simple as that, I wholeheartedly agree with you. ------------- Lost respect for these archives when I saw Creed added, among other bands. Not going to be foruming here anymore. You can keep my reviews if you want. |
Posted By: m@x
Date Posted: 02 Apr 2010 at 6:52am
WOW, putting a old on ratings/reviews, that is something we did not think about . Yes sure, we will not allow reviewing and ratings on the OTHER albums. |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: 23 Apr 2010 at 10:18am
That's right, Kerrang in the early days was more of a general rock magazine than purely metal. They even had Phil Collin's on the cover once!
|
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2010 at 8:49am
|
Read all these ideas or at least scanned them
One way of getting around the issue of creating a hard rock category and stopping reviews from clogging up the main pages is to simply not allow reviews for those albums yet.
I noticed you did this on The Sweet for some albums that cant be reviewed. It is asuggestion. ACDC I would say would be expected to be here. It is not unusual to see ACDC on metal sites. -------------  GLAM METAL!
|
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2010 at 10:16am
|
Just found ACDC on here - so thats a great addition for sure.
Love their brand of metal - seen them in concert a few years ago - rocked the stadium.
------------- GLAM METAL!
|
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2010 at 1:57am
|
They are certainly not metal by today's standards... but more or less fit into the category that Black Sabbath would fit into.. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2010 at 6:03am
Back In Black is a genre-defining heavy metal album alongside Motorhead's Ace of Spades and Black Sabbath's Heaven and Hell (both released in the same year).
"Highway To Hell" was pretty much my introduction to heavy metal, and "For Those About to Rock" is essentially "BiB" revisited.
There is no point whatsoever in trying to define 1970s-1980s metal by today's standards! Heavy Metal was not invented recently, it is an old form of music that defies fashion and has evolved so significantly that many now are surprised by what it used to sound like.
Please check out the many video clips that I have been putting up of the more obscure Heavy Metal bands of the NWoBHM - THAT is what it used to sound like, and THAT is why AC/DC are as much Metal as they are Hard Rock.
Black Sabbath are unquestionably metal, in a modern sense - and in a completely different category to AC/DC. More modern bands show Sabbath influence, while the NWoBHM had considerable AC/DC influence.
Sabbath's style of metal is and always has been so completely and fundamentally different to AC/DC's - why on earth would it fit into the same category, unless you were simply confining them to "1970s"? I really don't understand - with the exception of the guitar tones, solos and aggression, it's totally different music.
Please excuse my apparent incredulity, but AC/DC never used a tritone in the whole of their recording carreer, and neither were they susceptible to the occult, use of keyboards or dramatic light and shade - and Sabbath barely ever recorded a 12-bar blues or sang drinking songs! The two are polar opposites!
Tell me again how they fit into the same category?
|